Friday, January 09, 2015

The mainstream media in the USA and Europe are absolutely desperate to maintain the myth of the "Islamic radical" and hide the fact that it is the jihadists who are the Islamic reformers, not the so-called moderates:

Here’s the latest example of the New York Times censoring itself to avoid offending Muslims after an act of Islamic terror. This morning, BenK at Ace of Spades quoted an NYT story by Liz Alderman titled “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.” Take note of these two paragraphs from that story:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

I was intrigued by this quote, and it seemed worth exploring, so I went to the NYT story to quote it. But guess what?

Here’s what it says now:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

Nothing about telling her to convert to Islam. Nothing about telling her to read the Quran. Nothing about telling her to cover her face.

Nothing about the very reason these animals did this.

It sounds like the New York Times might have downright substituted their own words for those that Ms Vinson reported as well. Trust NOTHING that comes out of the mainstream press at face value. If they could get away with it, you know they'd blame the Charlie Hebdo attack on right-wing Christian militias.

Remember, as long ago as 2006, FORTY PERCENT of British Muslims were calling for the establishment of Sharia in the UK. There can be no compromise between Islam and the West, because one is either part of the Dar al-Islam or the Dar al-Harb.

Unfortunately, the idiots on the Left have learned nothing. On Slashdot, various leftists are pointing to the Crusades, to the 30 Years War, falsely claiming that the atheist Anders Breivik was a Christian, and in short, doing everything they can to keep their heads planted firmly in the Sand of Religious Equivalence.

78 Comments:

That's precisely the problem: Leftists learn nothing and never will. Even if a Muslim waved an AK-47 in their face and shot a dozen children in front of them, they would still run interference for that religion. Their martyrs are as willing to die for Islam as are actual suicide bombers. But the problem is that they make up such a percentage of the electorate (a healthy plurality, if not an outright majority in some places) and controls so much of the information flow that they can effectively nullify any would-be opposition. Recall how badly the National Front got crushed when it was down to them or Chirac. How are we supposed to deal with such unreasoning lunatics?

Pointing to the Crusades? This needs to be effectively mocked and retired. If something that happened near 1000 years ago can still be used to (supposedly) tarnish a religion, than certainly Muslims slaughtering thousands of people over just the last 10 years can tarnish the religion of Islam TODAY.

I love it when leftoids bring up the Crusades. I had a friend who was going on about the evils of the reconquista..I pointed out that the reconquista was a successful campaign of decolonisation by the indigenous peoples of the Iberian pennisula against a foreign colonising power.

It stopped him in his tracks, and after stammering a bit, he admitted i had a point.

It appears there is slightly more recent data. In 2007, that bastion of right-wing Islamophobia, the Guardian reported that a poll of roughly 1,000 Muslims found 37% support for Sharia law among the 16-24 year-old demographic. Support among older Muslims was at 17%.http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion

Isn't representing a non-quote as a quote a journalistic sin up there with or above plagiarism? Shouldn't this be followed up to bring Jayson Blair style black eye to NYT? Even from their archives: "He fabricated comments."

The New York Times, and the whole rest of the anti-white media establishment, is covering for their agenda. Nothing should disturb the mass flow of non-whites into white countries, and what goes with that.

The Islamic agenda was punishing offensive depictions of the Prophet PBUH.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right...”

I can't believe they left off the rest of the super authentic quote "It's not right...that people even think that we are Muslims, because that is a religion of peace, and we are not upholding its principles, but merely hoping to get a little publicity for UKIP across the Channel. Out of fleeting respect for your appeal to Muslim charity, would you like half of my bacon sandwich?"

"We need a moment of calm now. We do not need retaliation. Neither Islam nor multiculturalism in Europe is to blame for the bloody attack two mornings ago, as some right-wing political leaders have already begun to say".

"Please don't do anything that will go against us flooding your countries with turd world muzzies, it's def not their fault or linked to them in any way guys!"

"Unfortunately, the idiots on the Left have learned nothing. On Slashdot, various leftists are pointing to the Crusades, to the 30 Years War, falsely claiming that the atheist Anders Breivik was a Christian, and in short, doing everything they can to keep their heads planted firmly in the Sand of Religious Equivalence."

Fine. If it's ok to blame Christians for what they did a thousand years ago for the Crusades, then is it ok to blame Muslims for what Muslims did a few days ago? Is that the lesson here? What exactly is the point of this equivalence? That it should be ignored when it happens and nothing should be done to prevent it?

From the point of the jihadists, the New York Times wasn't covering for Islam at all. (The jihadists won't be grateful -- and they shouldn't.)

The words of the jihadist weren't a shameful secret to be covered up. For the jihadist that spoke them, they were for public consumption: a compassionate, noble and proud declaration of the Islamic militant spirit.

Mass media organizations that really supported the Islamic struggle would give words such as these prominence.

The New York Times does nothing for Islam but everything for anti-whiteism.

The jihadists ideally would like to convert us. The New York Times and the rest of the anti-white media complex it belongs to is trying to end us.

Folks like Scalzi who jump on the "Je sui Charlie Hebdo" popularity bandwagon have not thought it through logically (but that's par for the course of SJW group signaling.)Did Scalzi ever publish articles/stories/cartoons satirizing Muslims?If not, then he's no Charlie.

"The New York Times, and the whole rest of the anti-white media establishment, is covering for their agenda. Nothing should disturb the mass flow of non-whites into white countries, and what goes with that."

In 4th Gen conflict mode you de-legitimize them. They're doing a good job by themselves but you can help. When they blather their rhetoric all you to retort with is something like this, "That is just more political correctness" and then stop.

I don't even concern myself with what the NYT says, its a dying enterprise anyway speaking to a crowd that grows smaller every day. Yes its probably the number one newspaper but its number one at the terminal ward and as such, its impact on anyone but the aging part of the population can be ignored. Drudge has far more readers

Blogs like this one approach the reader base of many newspapers as well and have staggeringly lower costs.

Titus, "Mass media organizations that really supported the Islamic struggle would give words such as these prominence."

Yup, I recall news outlets playing a clip from a leader of an extremist cell, telling his cohorts here in the US to start shooting up people. I mean they actually aired the actual clip of him saying this. Seems to me that they wanted for something to happen in order to push for more gun control.

That's called a "genetic fallacy." Just because actual Nazis point out the sky is blue, that doesn't make it untrue.

By contrast, the media machine has officially broken down. The only way for National Front to NOT win in France soon is to abolish French elections entirely. A few more attacks like this and I don't think even that will suffice.

Today, the BBC News interviewed some guy I don't know - last name was Ravel, I think. Anyway, when asked about preventive steps France could take to prevent another attack, he went full double-speak, explaining that if France didn't want to live in a police state, they would have to grow accustomed to a surveillance state. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

OMG we need to nut up, damn shame some people died because of the multi-cult and a damn shame that many more will die in the coming days of "the fixing to be a big gun fight", but honestly this is all pretty low intensive war right now.

Anyway any French right winger/conservative whatever needs to start applying for a firearms permit, yeah that's right let the system know it is not trusted.

The argument, so far as I have been able to tell, is ISIS=LORDS RESISTANCE ARMY=ISLAMIST TERRORISTS=WESTBORO BAPTIST....so when it comes downto it Islam and Christianity are the same and what's important is why can't we all just get along.

The Lord Judges the Nations1"For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, 2I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.

There's old Cox and Forkum cartoon that has a guy with moderate Muslim written about him next to a zoo exhibit that says mythical creatures. I think that kind of says it all. 90% of self-professing Muslims may not be violent individuals. The question remains, are they the true Muslims though?

This magazine was no bastion of freedom. It was a tasteless media rag that spent most of its time bashing Christians and Whites. They thought they could throw a little Mohammed in too, and discovered that their new Islamic allies weren't playing along.Those ridiculous dreams of a worldwide Soviet Empire are just burning down all over the world. Let's all go out and buy some guns. Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.

Joshua Sinistar: "This magazine was no bastion of freedom. It was a tasteless media rag that spent most of its time bashing Christians and Whites. They thought they could throw a little Mohammed in too, and discovered that their new Islamic allies weren't playing along."

Right. There was nothing good about them. The only person I fell sorry for is the janitor.

Since anti-whites such as these decided that if you disagree with them your comments are in bad taste and you belong in jail, beaten up by "antifa" thugs, put out of work, ridiculed and ostracized, or all of the above.

Too many people who opposed politically correct views are in jail or have been subject to other penalties, even murder.

This is not a game where even though the other side shows vulgarity, malice and no sense of justice, one should say, "let's not treat them as they treat us, rather let's treat them as we wish they would treat us."

I suspect the next attack, or a similar one, will happen in a rural setting, such as Mississippi, where I live.

You're the second person I've seen suggest that. Why do you think so? They'd have to be incredibly stupid to do that, for the reason you give. But even if they're that stupid, they have to find their way out of the city and find a decent target first. Why do you think that's at all likely?

Lack of "security" forces...to bring the "fight" to the masses....remember, the Jihadi's aren't trying to escape. Well, at least, history says so. It would be a big mistake, but, that doesn't seem to matter to them.

@ cailcorishev: It certainly is conceivable, especially with all the Islamic sympathizers already in the US and more returning here every day.

2 guys brought the Boston metro to standstill and a handful brought the Paris metro to a standstill. With that taken into account, how much terror could 100 guys cause? What about 500 roaming the interstates?

Islam has their definition of what is unclean, same as Judaism, and with differences. There's no need for a Dhimmi Dean factory on the spot to do the above. A strangled dog or most any carrion would achieve the same thing.

But the one instance I know of, it was a pig. Where it was gotten from or why, who knows.

This could be looked at as French Left versus French Left. Assume the French Jews voted left, well according to the usually overwrought Drudge it seems the lefty voting French Jews have been ethnically cleansed by other leftists voters.

While the French jews welcomed the muslims in and prosecuted French whites under the statutes of Political Correctness the muslims were writing their own script. My guess is that the muslim leaders in France seen the jews as holding a chokepoint in leftist politics and they needed to be removed and or subjugated.

While I knew from my teens that the NYT was a liberal rag and not to be trusted, I am still always a little surprised when I find an American institution cheerleading for neither the home team nor the visiting team, but for the people trying to blow up the stadium.

Or to borrow an analogy from Lewis, I can understand the motives of those in Salem trying to burn the witches, a stereotype of the Right, and I could be on the side of those wrongfully accused, how the Left likes to see themselves, but the NYT and that similar brand of traitor-leftist seems to be trying to defend the actual witches. They're not merely traitors against America but against the idea of Christendom and anything good in the world.

That being said, I'm not looking forward to the inevitable bloodshed. Revolutions tend to look like the French one, not the American one. I have no idealistic misconceptions that good, red-blooded Americans or Westerners in general are going to "scour the Shire" and usher in a new little golden age. (And neither does Vox, I gather, which leads to people accusing him of wanting or espousing what he merely observes from history is probably going to happen.)

2 guys brought the Boston metro to standstill and a handful brought the Paris metro to a standstill. With that taken into account, how much terror could 100 guys cause? What about 500 roaming the interstates?

My point is, the further they get from the big cities with their tall buildings, large numbers of victims, complicated infrastructure, and tight gun control ordinances, the less damage they can do, and the higher their risk becomes. We don't have metros to be standstilled. There's no advantage in them spreading out into the rural areas, where they'd stick out like a sore thumb. None.

So when someone predicts that complete shift in tactics, I'm curious what he's basing it on. What advantage does he think they'll see in going out in the country where there are fewer targets, far more guns, and no population to blend into?

uh, the Beltway Snipers? the news idiots may have referred to them by the name of a big city, but only one of their attacks actually happened within the DC environs. they killed people from WA state to TX to MD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

you may not be familiar with DC but i am. almost all of the attacks on that map are WELL out into the burbs.

The "burbs" are not rural. I looked at the shooting that happened the furthest from D.C. in Virginia, and that county has 213 people/square mile. I guess that's kinda rural, but my county has 78; the county where my parents live has 20. Most of the shootings took place in Montgomery County, density 2000 pop/sq mi.

But they kinda make my point. Two guys only killed 17, and it took them several months to do it, and they didn't pick up the pace until they got to D.C. They could have killed that many with a bomb planted in a grocery store on a busy afternoon, and saved all that driving around. If the point was to cause "terror," I don't think it scared people outside the Beltway very much. If the goal was to kill a lot of infidels, they sucked at it.

But again, I didn't say it couldn't happen. I was puzzled by the idea that it's likely.

cailcorishev January 10, 2015 11:31 AM If the point was to cause "terror," I don't think it scared people outside the Beltway very much.

that's because, when you come down to it, jihadis aren't very smart.

the problem was, they got the narrative backwards. they murdered people in the rural areas on their way to DC ... before anybody was connecting any dots. there was NO NATIONAL NEWS STORY until they hit DC. it's not that they didn't murder people out in the sticks. it's that nobody was paying attention to them when they were.

had they murdered, say, 5 in the DC area to splash the pages AND THEN proceeded on a cross country spree, dozens of murders that they weren't even involved with would be getting broadcast on the nightly news as 'possible Beltway Sniper attacks' every week.

you notice how you haven't seen anything on Ebola recently? is there any panic for Ebola?

why not? it's still going on.

the answer is, the news media has decided to sieze control of that narrative by main force ... by no longer reporting on it.

There is also the theory, espoused by the D.C. sniper's ex-wife, that he was actually in D.C. to kill her, and that he was using the sniper thing as cover so that after he killed her in a sniper attack no one would come looking for him. He had often threatened to kill her, had "kidnapped" their children and taken them out of the country and had a restraining order against him to stay away from her. She moved from Washington (the state) to D.C. to get away from him. His claims of being a jihadist are dubious.

Laz, "2 guys brought the Boston metro to standstill and a handful brought the Paris metro to a standstill. With that taken into account, how much terror could 100 guys cause? What about 500 roaming the interstates?"

Precisely. The globalists allow extremists in to our countries to act as a fifth column of sorts, staging attacks which the former uses to destroy our liberties and further expand their police state. Most people are focused exclusively on the Muslim problem ...which, incidentally, is the intention, to divert attention from the bigger picture. If they can successfully maneuver the public into mass civil unrest or even civil war, they will have the justification they've been looking for to decimate our rights, sovereignty and economy in one fell swoop.

Stay alert and pray to God that this can be averted, that people are made aware that they're being used as pawns by the enemies of Christ.

I'm not sure the state is even sane anymore. They just seem to get more shrill everyday as their mad dreams evaporate. Here they've seriously miscalculated and sent their pet apes against the police they need for their police state, and now the police are literally turning their backs on them.Anyone thinking Paris is a false flag should consider how badly this turned out. This whole lets hold hands kumbaya show of solidarity just seems desperate after how weak the state looked when two measly terrorists shot up a minor media rag. That visula of the cop begging for his life just pissed away a Billion Dollar media campaign that gun control Bloomberg had planned for 2015. Gabby Giffords went back to cold storage as another nail in the gun control coffin was hammered hard into the collective unconscious.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.